Thursday, January 28, 2010

Archive of Anti-U.S. military bias, libels at HuffPost

.This archive is divided into two parts:

(1) HuffPost's publication of anti-U.S. military LIBELSThese articles document incidents in which HuffPost decided to publish inflammatory material against the U.S. military or American soldiers (current or former) that it knew or should have known was false, and could only serve to advance the global cyber-jihad.

(2) HuffPost's "journalistic" bias against the U.S. militaryThese articles document incidents in which HuffPost disrespected or otherwise undermined the U.S. military.

(1/22/11) HuffPost again defamed and endangered the U.S. military, by giving top-line coverage to an incendiary libel against them, for which it offered no proof. Specifically, it published and gave top-line coverage to an original "news" story that alleges that a cadre of religious zealots in our military have taken over our government, and they're on a "crusade" to transform Muslim lands into Christian ones.

As we'll discover, this verbiage in which this lie is wrapped is uniquely inflammatory --- and, given the fact that HuffPost is the most widely-read blog in the world, it can only serve to help incite and justify militant Islamists' attacks on American soldiers.

(10/25/10) HuffPost looked at the coverage of the recent Wikileaks document dump, as reported by the New York Times, the AP, the BBC and MSNBC, and got a pretty good idea of the main story: that the Iraqi military and police committed a variety of abusive acts and worse against known and suspected terrorists and insurgents, and the U.S. military did not stop it. This is how they --- and even the terrorist-friendly, notorious Al-Jazeera, whom HuffPost has relied on time and time again for inflammatory libels against the U.S. military, Israel and Jews --- played the story.

HuffPost, however, decided to publish an inflammatory, false headline, insinuating that it was the U.S. military --- not the Iraqi military and police --- that had perpetrated these acts. Predictably, HuffPost's malicious incitement resulted in a torrent of hate-filled user comments against the U.S. military, including at least one open threat of mass murder --- all of which it reviewed, approved and decided to publish.

(10/1/10) Are honorably-discharged American soldiers (and law enforcement officers) who now serve in the private sector, protecting U.S. government officials during their travels, heroes... or "mercenaries"? Patriotic Americans view these individuals as heroes, who now risk their lives to serve us in another capacity, at our government's request.

HuffPost, however, decided topublish on its front page an inflammatory headline, claiming that our government is hiring "mercenaries" --- whom it falsely, maliciously defines as private security contractors. Predictably, certain long-term users submitted hate-filled comments in response to this incitement --- which HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish, even though many were egregious violations of its policy.

In this article, we paint a portrait of who our security contractors really are --- and three of these American heroes who were struck down in the line of duty. We also reveal the fact that the source of this story is a "journalist" that HuffPost knew, or had reason to know, is a deeply disturbed, malicious individual with quite a... "history."

(5/13/10) HuffPost published a front-page headline that accused the U.S. military of conducting systematic battlefield executions. Specifically, the article accused our soldiers of executing individuals whom they knew or suspected are not terrorists, out of convenience.

So what proof did its source --- a documented, self-admitted liar --- provide? Oh, a few nameless, anonymous people told him stories. Zero physical proof. Zero evidence of any kind.

HuffPost then reviewed, approved and decided to publish a nearly endless stream of hate-filled user comments against U.S. soldiers, all of which were egregious violations of its comment policy.

(April 2010) HuffPost published an inflammatory splash headline on its front page, accusing the U.S. military of committing "collateral murder," apparently without doing any basic fact-checking --- or acknowledging that top conservative blogs had already thoroughly debunked this libel.

It then doubled-down on this deception, by deliberately ignoring one of the TV shows it religiously covers, "The Colbert Report," which obliterated the libels and propaganda behind this story. It then tripled-down on its deception, by disguising a libel-filled opinion piece, "U.S. Troops Gun Down Iraqi Civilians...," by its "Senior Washington Correspondent," to appear as if it was a news story. In it, he demanded that Congress start "giving a shit" about this story, and urged readers to get involved. Once again,

On each of these three threads, HuffPost reviewed, approved and decided to publish a nearly endless stream of hate-filled user comments against U.S. soldiers that were incited by its editorial decisions --- all of which were egregious violations of its comment policy.

(May 2009) Blood libels are lies that are so serious they can and do incite violent retribution on behalf of alleged "victims." In summary, HuffPost knowingly enabled and protected an egregious violator of its policies to repeatedly post phony pictures on all its top news threads, allegedly showing American soldiers sexually torturing Muslim women and children, which he claimed is a matter of their "standard operating procedure."

When a HUFF-WATCH operative attempted to expose these photos as fakes, HuffPost repeatedly blocked his comments, then banned him. In spring 2010, HuffPost made the perpetrator a Community Moderator, charged with helping it keep its comment threads "clean" of violations.Caution: Although a summary is provided at the link above, this is a long, detailed report. This was unavoidable, in order to document the minute-by-minute decisions HuffPost made to enable and protect a psychopath --- or a cyber-jihadi --- to defame our soldiers.

(5/4/09) This is another instance in which HuffPost posted a false/misleading splash front-page headline --- this time, sourced from the terrorist-friendly, notorious al Jazeera. In this case, HuffPost's headline clearly insinuated that the U.S. military was giving Christian bibles to our soldiers, and that they were then ordered to proselytize to Afghanistanis.

As in so many other instances like this, many of the radical leftists that HuffPost attracts, enables and protects didn't bother to read the article or follow the links, or do any additional research. They just submitted incredibly hateful "comments" against Christianity, the U.S. military, and America, which HuffPost reviewed, approved and published, even though many were egregious violations of its (supposed) Comment Policy and Terms of Service.

(4/25/09) HuffPost repeatedly used the same unsourced photo, depicting a man in a prison setting in a stress position, for different news stories over time --- implying that he was in a U.S. facility, when in fact there was zero proof of this.

For all we know, they could have been from a Russian, Chinese or Iranian prison.

HuffPost took the story, rewrote the headline to read, "U.S. Forces Demolishing Afghan Homes They Say Are Booby-Trapped," and placed it just under the splash headline on the front page, with a picture of what appears to be callus American soldiers.

Why would HuffPost insert those two words into the headline, "they say"?Given its long history of publishing inflammatory libels against, and lies about the U.S. military, if anyone's statements should be under suspicion at this point, it's HuffPost's. What a surprise that its headline incited a torrent of anti-U.S. military hate comments, which it reviewed, approved and decided to publish.

(1) It sought out and utilized a comically disjointed picture of Gen. Petraeus in order to simultaneously smear him, and accent its claim that he is launching a PR campaign to "defend" the war in Afghanistan --- when in fact he could do no such thing without being under orders to do so.

(2) It continued its pathological shilling for Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by seeking out and utilizing a comically complimentary picture of him, to accent a story about how he is building thousands of mass graves to bury U.S. soldiers, should they invade Iran.

Comparisons are shown to how other (real) newspapers played the exact same story. Together, these acts can have no other effect but to undermine the U.S. military and advance the cyber-jihad.

(4/15/10) Violating its own policy, HuffPost permitted certain users (all radical leftists) to celebrate the murder of U.S. civilian contractors in Afghanistan, claiming they "got what they deserved," and denounce them as "murderers," "nuts," "jackals," etc.

Yet instead of instantly banning these violators, as HuffPost claims is its policy in cases of "outrageous" conduct, it not only left all their accounts active, it protected them by banning a non-violating user who dared to stand up to them. This is part of HuffPost's continuing practice of protecting vile, radical leftists, while censoring and banning those who challenge them, on a minute-to-minute basis.

(4/8/10) Another example of how HuffPost violates its own policies, by allowing the radical leftists that it attracts, enables and protects to run wild with off-topic comments and accusations against the U.S. military, on a news thread dedicated to the tragic situation of an American soldier being held, and exploited, by the Taliban.

(12/30/09) HuffPost decided to publish the story of eight CIA officers who were murdered in the line of duty. One might think that given the seriousness of this story, and how many times HuffPost has been exposed for the hate it has allowed to fester on its comment threads, it might work to actually work to enforce its Comment Policy on this one.

As this article documents, that person would be very wrong. HuffPost ignored its own Comment Policy, by reviewing, approving and deciding to publish comments that sound as if they came directly from al Qaeda --- denouncing these CIA officers (and the CIA in general) as "killers" and "criminals." It also allowed long-term violators of its policies to "hijack" the thread to discuss music, romance, and anything but the murder of these patriots.

(10/3/09) A HUFF-WATCH operative gently objected to other users turning a top news thread about the deaths of American soldiers into "music night," in which they engulfed the thread with links to their favorite music (a violation of HuffPost's stated policy regarding off-topic comments). HuffPost allowed the radical leftists engaging in this behavior --- mostly long-term, protected violators --- to lash out at this user, and put it to a "vote."Soon after this exchange, HuffPost banned the complaining user, but left the violators free to continue, and to celebrate their "victory."

News articles emerged before this decision that documented the fact that the photographer who obtained this battlefield photo did so in violation of the U.S. military's embedding agreement, and that the Pentagon and the marine's family were pleading with the AP to not release it.

(Sept. 2008) HuffPost permitted one of its official bloggers to repeatedly post comments on unrelated news threads about his conspiracy theories against the U.S. military, and his suggestions that radical leftists like him need to be prepared to engage in physical violence with American soldiers.

Despite several complaint emails, HuffPost not only allowed it all to continue, it permitted him to brag about his ability to get users banned (invariably non-violating ones whom he and his "friends" don't like), and to derail "news" pages for his flirting, and discussions of what he finds erotic.